Supreme Court questions Delhi Metro shutdown ahead of protest

The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the sweeping restrictions imposed in Delhi ahead of a planned protest, expressing concern over the closure of 57 Metro stations and the cancellation of trains to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations. The court said law and order measures must be proportionate and made it clear that there cannot be a complete prohibition on public transport.

Hearing a petition against the suspension of train and Metro services before the protests called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and opposition parties seeking the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked the Centre to ensure that normal life is not brought to a halt.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was told by the bench that it was concerned about the closure of Metro stations from 9 pm on Friday till further orders and the cancellation of main and express trains. CJI Kant said, "One very important principle that we follow for every citizen is the principle of proportionality You have to prevent certain things. Take measures only to the extent necessary to prevent them. But that does not mean you use a hammer to kill a fly. That principle must be kept in mind."

Mehta said he understood the court's concerns and would discuss the matter with the authorities concerned, but added that the Chief Justice's remark was only an example and should not be reported as the court telling the government that it was using "a hammer to kill a fly". CJI Kant replied, "Exercise caution in abundance. There is nothing wrong with that. You are responsible for maintaining law and order. But that responsibility is not merely about protecting the State property; it is about protecting people. That is your sovereign duty."

The bench said daughters, young children, senior citizens, very elderly people and patients use public transport and need to be protected. "There is absolutely no difficulty with taking appropriate measures. But make sure that everything is not brought to a halt. There cannot be complete prohibition," it said. At the outset, the court said it had serious concerns about the orders on Metro station closures and train cancellations.

The judges said their concern was not about protesters but about the hundreds and thousands of commuters who travel from Gurugram, Greater Noida, East Delhi and South Delhi to the city for their livelihood. "They are students, employees and senior citizens who travel by public transport. We are speaking on behalf of the common citizens of this city. The law enforcement authorities are certainly entitled to take regulatory measures. There is no doubt about that. If you want to restrict unruly movement, you can do so. But that does not mean you can bring everything to a halt and leave people without any transport facility," the bench said.

Justice Bagchi said reducing the frequency of trains and Metro services could be a regulatory measure, but stopping them completely till further orders would be an extreme step. "You can regulate the frequency of trains, but don't stop it altogether," he told Mehta. The solicitor general responded that, depending on the circumstances, complete stoppage could sometimes be a proportionate measure and that law enforcement agencies needed some leeway because the situation could not be foreseen in advance. Justice Bagchi agreed in principle, but said an order shutting Metro stations from 9 pm onwards could not be treated as a regulatory measure.

Justice Mohana also voiced concern after lawyers said the city had been barricaded and traffic movement was being restricted. "If tomorrow anything untoward happens, who will be responsible? Some measures are required but in a proportionate manner," she said. Mehta disputed the claim that the entire city had been shut down and said the authorities had taken proportionate steps in view of the violence that followed the July 20 Parliament march attempt by CJP protesters.

He also told the court that, according to instructions received, the internet shutdown was limited to certain sensitive pockets near the President's House within a 4-kilometre radius and would be reviewed based on security inputs. The bench said it was confining itself to the issue of transport services, as none of the parties organising the October 10 protest was before the court.

When advocate Vrinda Grover raised the issue of police visiting mosques and hotels and advising people not to join the protests, the bench said it would not examine the matter on the basis of statements alone, especially when no aggrieved parties were before it. The court also asked the Centre to consider designating another site for peaceful protests in place of Jantar Mantar. In its order, it said all sides were ad idem that a suitable place with basic amenities for peaceful and lawful protesters should be identified and designated, and asked the competent authority to consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision. Overall, the court said authorities may regulate movement to maintain order, but public transport and daily life cannot be stopped altogether.